<quoted text>It's already flawed for trying to combine homosexual marriage and having children as a single issue when it is not. If you cannot even understand why these are separate issues why would I waste my time trying to pick apart your stupid analogy, which is just you repeating the same points again and again only using different words this time and fails to make any points whatsoever.

You have TWO mistakes! There is no such thing as a gay 'marriage', and of course it is impossible for them to have children.

Only a heterosexual couple can, and the best setting for that is marriage.

Who gives you the right to eliminate children from the equation, just because your relationship is desolate and barren of them?

The analogy is perfect, because it takes a simple example from nature. You understand it perfectly, you just don't like it, do you.

<quoted text>At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.Gay couples are the picture of defective failure. Mating behavior gone abusive with NOTHING to show for it.This is not an opinion, it is simple reality. No vote changed that. Or ever will.Smile.

Given your opinion, we still have marriage equality. What will you be doing about that?

Fox News is not liberal, it's conservative. It's the only news channel where you get the truth. Unlike the Obama news channel's (nbc,cbs,abc,cnn,msnbc,hln.)

Truth according to Fox News and what they believe. They use half truths and then make up wild stories to cause mass hysteria in all the freaks who watch it in an effort to keep them watching. I love how Fox News watchers always say the other news networks are biased. I hope someday you people wake up and realize that they are the only people reporting those things because they are not true!

I'm with Dusty on this one. In spite of all of your verbal ejaculations, what effect does your opinion have on my marriage?Not unlike Westboro Baptist, you're actually helping our cause.Is that your grand plan?

Did you hear that even rabidly anti-gay WBC, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court which documents that marriage took place under the written law before the time of Noah?

From their brief: "Another Midrash says that males just didn't sodomize other males, but that they signed ketobot (marriage contracts) legalizing these re-lationships."

<quoted text>Did you hear that even rabidly anti-gay WBC, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court which documents that marriage took place under the written law before the time of Noah?From their brief: "Another Midrash says that males just didn't sodomize other males, but that they signed ketobot (marriage contracts) legalizing these re-lationships."

<quoted text>At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.Gay couples are the picture of defective failure. Mating behavior gone abusive with NOTHING to show for it.This is not an opinion, it is simple reality. No vote changed that. Or ever will.Smile.

Your version of reality is not reflected in any US law. Therefore it is just your personal opinion. Procreation intent or ability has never been a requirement.

No matter how you choose to conceptualize marriage for yourself, legally it is a fundamental right of the individual. While churches may place any restrictions on their own ceremonies they choose, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated.

While procreation has never been a requirement for marriage, even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. The only eligibility requirement is being human. Reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Gay people qualify.

Gay people are asking to be treated equally under the laws, in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.

I'm with Dusty on this one. In spite of all of your verbal ejaculations, what effect does your opinion have on my marriage?Not unlike Westboro Baptist, you're actually helping our cause.Is that your grand plan?

You don't have a marriage.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

<quoted text>Your version of reality is not reflected in any US law. Therefore it is just your personal opinion. Procreation intent or ability has never been a requirement.No matter how you choose to conceptualize marriage for yourself, legally it is a fundamental right of the individual. While churches may place any restrictions on their own ceremonies they choose, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated.While procreation has never been a requirement for marriage, even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. The only eligibility requirement is being human. Reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Gay people qualify.Gay people are asking to be treated equally under the laws, in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.Neither tradition nor gender provides a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right.

I have no need to equate a scientific statement with law. It is however reflected in many of the partial quotes you use of SCOTUS.

<quoted text>I have no need to equate a scientific statement with law. It is however reflected in many of the partial quotes you use of SCOTUS.You are in denial. I make you embarrassed by exposing itSmile.

I feel no embarrassment in demonstrating your attempts to justify harming others needlessly through denial of equal treatment under the law, is irrational and based on your personal prejudice.

Nor do I delight in exposing your irrational prejudice. I only bother because the prejudice and discrimination you promote results in real harm to real people.

You still fail to demonstrate any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage to same gender couples. Clearly, it is you who remains in denial.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.